The tension on the Queen’s University campus has been palpable since the first mention that Prof. Jordan Peterson would be coming to speak on campus. Anticipation among students and community members grew, and ideological divides deepened as the date grew closer. On social media one could see groups created for both the protest and the counterprotest, and the wild spread of misinformation and an oversimplification of the issues at hand.

I was one of the many hundreds of people who waited hours to attend the Jordan Peterson event on Monday evening, and the anticipation for protest demonstrations certainly did not disappoint. How could one describe a misinformed group of ideological radicals and misguided individuals with a clear aura of resentment, animosity and personal outrage? Though it was chaos throughout, a semblance of order was created among the protesters by a woman with a megaphone, and it was frightening to watch them devolve into a state of physical outrage and frenzy as they screamed their chants and expressed their disgust at those of us wishing to hear Peterson speak. The protesters also distributed flyers amongst themselves with a list of chants and talking points to help them more effectively protest the event.

The virtue signalling of the protesters was exemplified with chants such as “Shame on you,” “No freedom for hate speech,” “Your silence is complicit” and “End white privilege.” Interesting enough, most of the students condemning white privilege as a great evil were themselves recipients of that privilege. They also celebrated their moral superiority with signs saying, “Free speech is a right, a platform is a privilege” and “My pronouns are not up for debate.” It was when the event began that the radical protesters resorted to literally banging on the walls and windows and using garbage cans and noisemakers to disrupt the event from outside. One of the stained glass windows in Grant Hall was shattered. Three of the protestors snuck into the event and attempted to hijack and disrupt it to condemn the audience and the speakers. Prof. Peterson addressed the intolerable tactics himself, comparing their actions to those of a toddler and whose socialization as a functioning and rational member of society has not been achieved, which was received with a raucous round of applause from the audience.

Where was the security to prevent this from happening? Did the campus administration not anticipate such an outrageous reaction from the protestors? I have to think that this was a blatant oversight on the part of the administration.

The individuals who attempted to sabotage the event at Queen’s directly contributed to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the claims he made during the presentation. If they were truly concerned with taking Peterson down and debasing him as a public figure, they should do it in the public forum in debate. They should force Peterson to justify and explain his views. Many of the comments I heard from people leaving the event echoes this idea. There was an allotted time for the audience to engage with Peterson and not a single person took advantage of that opportunity to ask difficult questions. You are not making any change to fight the oppressive system by standing outside screaming and shouting. You do it by presenting better ideas and challenging the view of others, not by trying to prevent those with whom you disagree ideologically from speaking.

The idea Peterson sought to ingrain during his speech was the importance of being an individual, to condemn individuals whose ideology of identity politics seeks to categorize and prescribe a set of ideas and beliefs onto the individual. Prof. Peterson is fighting for the conclusions that western civilization came to hundreds of years ago, that the individual must have the freedom to think, choose and act without being constrained in any way by the state and its monopolization of force. If the protesters understood these fundamental principles, they would not have been seeking to prevent Peterson from speaking Monday night. They would have been sitting alongside the rest of us who eagerly and respectfully listened to what Jordan Peterson had to say. They don’t have to agree with what he says, but they must allow him to say it.

Landen Kruger is a fourth-year political science student at Queen’s University.

Disappointed in story

Re: “It’s not a tragic place to work,” Feb. 24.

I wonder if I am the last optimistic person around who still expects fair and unbiased media reporting in this world of fake news.

I gave a fairly lengthy interview to the Whig-Standard recently for an article, only to find it barely referred to in the story, that is, of the anonymous Kingston General Hospital doctor who feared for her safety. I am not angry, just disappointed.

I fear for the safety of the doctor’s patients, the healthy ones who are carried into the hospital within their mothers for the sole purpose of being terminated by a doctor who finds her work “very satisfying.”

Abortion is an issue that is presented from many angles. The one you may have read in the article presents the doctor who carries out the wishes of the woman who is pregnant, with an unborn child who she believes is a problem for her. Heart-wrenching stories and handwringing by the doctor do not remove the unborn child from the womb, medical interference with the baby’s life does. Women who are distressed by their pregnancy need loving and caring solutions to the problems they face.

Those who offer this help outside an abortuary by their peaceful picketing want to offer the woman truly compassionate help in finding solutions to her problems, and the only reason anyone would have to shout is a government dictate that keeps them 50 metres away.

Many years ago, when pro-life women still had freedom of speech in Canada and were still able to help outside Morgentaler’s abortuary in Toronto, I had the privilege of seeing the hundreds of photos of babies with their mothers who were saved from that abortionist, by the counsellors. Every problem has a solution if we care enough. Death is final, but it is not a solution. Albeit one that is offered far too frequently to everyone in our culture, including those near the end of their lives.

Our society needs to stop hiding behind their needs and wants and understand that in every abortion, a baby dies no matter what the reason or what the facility is. In Canada since 1969, when the late Pierre Trudeau’s government opened the Pandora’s Box to liberalize abortion, more than five million unborn babies have been terminated, an estimated 40,000 of those in Kingston. It’s time we stopped this from happening and really provide women with the compassionate help they need to solve their problems.

CLC Kingston has been bringing this message to the public for 48 years. We have held numerous peaceful and truthful pro-life demonstrations without incident over those years as the police and citizens can attest. We do not distribute inaccurate information, but those who have medical knowledge do. We are attempting to save unborn babies from abortion and helping their mothers with real solutions to their problems.

Mary Ellen Douglas

Campaign Life Coalition

Ontario President

Kingston

Issue is a 'quagmire of contradictions'

When the Whig-Standard chooses to make its featured story on its Saturday newspaper about a young woman who decided that having an abortion was for her the best decision, one must pause and wonder why the Whig is wanting to stir the pot of the abortion controversy? The abortion issue is a quagmire of contradictions, but now that you have opened the door with your featured article, you will definitely be inundated with letters to the editor, because I certainly found myself compelled to write.

A comment about the headline itself: "Putting her life first."This succinctly sets the tone. The rights of the unborn child were secondary for this young woman. One day, though, this young woman may be blessed with a wanted pregnancy, and from the moment she holds her newborn child, that child's life will come first and her perspective will change. In the meantime, pro-lifers will continue advocating for the children growing in a woman's womb but who will not be given life because the mother chose her situation as taking precedence.

Life is full of choices and challenges. Stepping up and assuming the consequences of our choices, especially our missteps, is challenging. Putting ourselves first is the mantra of today's egocentric thinking. We rationalize abortions by ignoring the rights of the unborn and focus instead on the rights of the pregnant woman. Ironically, the majority of our population is Christian and we strive to live our lives following the teachings of Jesus to love one another, yet a majority of Canadians support legalized abortion. In Ontario under regular circumstances, a woman can have an abortion performed up to 20 weeks into pregnancy and later if circumstances dictate, yet one day past the 20 weeks and a death certificate must be issued. One day a life ignored, the next day a life acknowledged. Contradictory.

Catharina Summers

Kingston

Supporters focused only on cows

Hearing the reaction to the reactivation plans for the prison farms has me quite puzzled as to the fixation many seem to have on cattle. I certainly support the farms being reopened but fail to see why the particular choice of crops or livestock matters very much. Any argument why cows should be part of the plan would seem equally valid for other types of livestock.